UK General Election 2010

[Dante]

It's not about how much taxation there is, it's about who pays it. Heavier taxes on the top earners in the country would be extremely welcome.

[Dunenewt]

Stuart Wheeler, one of Britain

[Dunenewt]

You're showing your immaturity by suggesting politics is one big jokes...

...also, if you actually read the link, regarding bribes:

In 2001, he donated

[Sneakgab]

That was actually me. I posted by his name by accident.

By ''disillusioned'' do you mean ''realized he could invest his bribes donations in better places''?

Actually I don't know anything about this situation, so that's actually an honest question despite the humor (What political discussion is complete without a quip, when politics is just one big joke?)

[Dunenewt]

Ok, that makes more sense.

I will try to keep people on here informed on the situation, and I'm sure Dante, and Nema if he pops in again, will do the same, from their perspective.

[athanasios]

Politics IS a big joke. An ordinary person shouldn't take seriously. They are just a cover...

[Dante]

For what, exactly?

Please don't say the NWO, we've laughed at them quite enough already.

[Dunenewt]

Ah, more conspiracy.  Great.

Can anyone see Defence becoming a major issue in the run up to the election with the Argies making more vague empty threats...that could warrant a thread of its own soon.

[Dante]

At the moment it's just so much bluster. I don't see that becoming an issue politically until it becomes one militarily, and I don't see that happening at all.

[Sneakgab]

Such a war provides an option for distracting the masses (I think Argentina has an election this year).

In that sense, one might call it a political issue.

[athanasios]

For what, exactly?

Please don't say the NWO, we've laughed at them quite enough already.

A proverb says: 'let us see who will laugh last'. ;)

A lot of odd things are happening nowadays and these are not conspiracy theories. They are facts. :-X

[Kiyouta]

Tut tut. Osborne's bro has been very naughty...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8534938.stm

Heh, he reminds me of someone...

Divine                                      Adam Osborne

Definately. ;D

This should be the Tories' campaign video:

[Dante]

A proverb says: 'let us see who will laugh last'. ;)

A lot of odd things are happening nowadays and these are not conspiracy theories. They are facts. :-X

Facts require proof, proof requires evidence. I realise that's something of a sticking point for some people on this board, but nevertheless that's how it works.

So who's voting Green this time?!

[nemafakei]

Probably quite a few people. Where I am, Cambridge, has a Lib Dem MP who's standing down (he generally does as good a job as you could expect of a Lib Dem). Their replacement doesn't sound all that great, and came 4th out of 4 in a council seat the Greens won. The Labour Candidate is a union man, but a Unison fulltimer rather than a lay rep, and he's hard to pin down beyond a couple of points. The Tories still don't seem to be gaining much traction in the city, although it's conceivable that the vote will be split four ways and they could edge a victory. For me, the complicating factor is a candidate on a socialist platform.

[Sneakgab]

You mean, the lack of a candidate on a socialist platform right?

...or, is there somebody I don't know about?

[nemafakei]

http://www.cambridgesocialists.org.uk/

Complicating in the sense that the Greens are decent and might have a chance - but when you've got we've got socialists standing as socialists, there's more to be won (those not in the UK, we're talking socialists as in Die Linke not as in SDP). Also, Martin's a lay Unison rep.

[Sneakgab]

In many places, the greens don't do cr@p. Is it like this in the UK?

Also I heard that the UK green party claims to have no capitalistsocialist leaning, that environmental concerns ''transcend'' these issues or some such stupid cr@p.

If that's the case, then these guys are hopeless. The ''best'' one could hope for from them is the lowering of the working class' living standard for the sake of the environment (and it's debatable whether that would even be a good thing. Even then, it is far from certain that they could even achieve this)

We've already seen what is possible (or should I say impossible?) for the environment under capitalism. The only reasonable way to satisfy environmental concerns is via socialism.

If the Green party are not socialist, then either they are another band of fraudsters in calling themselves green, like so many social democrats, or they do not understand the situation properly (once again, like so many social democrats) and so there is not much hope in their ability to meet environmental concerns.

Or maybe, they're just another bunch of opportunists trying to pull some votes?

[nemafakei]

The Green Party in England and Wales (GPEW) has a pretty detailed leftish manifesto (including, for example, public transport renationalisation). It's not explicitly socialist, but many of its members and candidates are, and overall nowadays it's clearly to the left of Labour (with some exceptions). They have in the past supported cuts at local council level - I'm not sure if that's still going on as even their rightmost elements must have realised by now this is an excellent way to lose all support.

In Ireland, the GP is in coalition with Fianna F

[Dante]

One could say, not without accuracy, that the environment does transcend petty human concerns like finance and healthcare. However, that would be a suicidal platform for any political party to run on, and a pretty stupid one otherwise too. A one-issue party isn't going to get anywhere until it can persuade everyone that the one issue is worth overlooking others for. Besides that, a one-issue party would still have to deal with the other issues, regardless of what platform (or lack of one) it chooses. The only counter argument I could think of is that people who only really care about one issue shouldn't really be forced to make decisions about somethig that they know little and care less about. But then, I suppose that's what politicians do.

On a related note, what does everyone thing of people who don't vote at all?

[Dragoon Knight]

Well now there's a thing. :P

I, myself, am of the opinion that will most likely annoy a lot of people.  Mostly Dante.  Sorry. :D

On a purely mathematical basis, one vote does not count.  Now, there are certain situations where this will not be true, but for the most part, it is.  Let me address some of these concerns.

- Firstly, there is only a horrendously miniscule chance that there will be a tie-break situation between parties in which one vote (i.e. my vote) would make a difference.

- Secondly, and related to the first point, in the vast majority of situations, there will only be two parties who are contesting for leadership which have a snowball's chance of winning.

- Thirdly, and related to the second point, the other parties (who might win more seats with more votes, or whatnot) will still be separated from eachother by more than one vote.

- Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, I am perfectly aware of the argument which goes something along the lines of "but if everyone voted, every vote would count!", or its illegitimate third-cousin, "the only reason every vote doesn't count is because everyone thinks that their vote doesn't count!".

The problem lies in the fact that this isn't a perfect world.  Voter turnout is far too low, and my individual effort in voting will have no effect.  This isn't up for debate - one vote, in the reality of the UK voting system, does not matter.  It doesn't matter how far you reduce it down.

Now, having said all of this, I believe that voting should not be a right; it should be a responsibility.  I think that when you turn 18, you should be required to vote, with the penalty for not doing so being harsh enough to discourage it.  Think tax returns.

Of course, this presents its own series of problems.  Human rights - you can't force us to blah blah!  What of the stupid - their opinions will sully the blah!  It will never work - there will always be those who refuse to blah blah blah blah.  Yes, again, I know.  But a voter turnout of over 90% would make the odds of a single vote counting much higher.

It would also have the positive effect of making people really question who they're voting for and why.  It might even stop some of the bickering that goes on right now, and result in some properly differentiated parties.  Right now, another good reason for not voting is simply due to disillusionment.  I couldn't care less who gets voted in - nothing will change dramatically enough to affect me.  Hell, Scotland's been under a devolved government for years now, a good few of them with a party in support of independence.  How much has really changed?

I support the idea of voting, and the democratic process in general.  What I don't support is the way it's implemented, or the notion that me neglecting to vote is endemic to said situation.  There's circular logic in use on both sides of the argument, but it basically comes down to "people who don't vote, don't vote because no-one else does either".  The solution, then, seems clear.  Make people vote.

[Dante]

I'm waiting for more reactions really. But I will say this:

methematically, the only way for something to be worth nothing is to be nothing.

A convoluted phrase, but it's true. 1 != 0.

[Dragoon Knight]

I never said that one vote was worth nothing - I just said it didn't count.  Of course one vote amounts to something, but in the overall scale of percentages, it doesn't make any real difference.

If Party A has 233,701 votes and Party B has 170,848 votes, it makes no appreciable or effective difference to the overall result if those numbers are changed to 233,702 and 170,849, or conversely 233,700 and 170,847.  It's the percentages that matter.

I'll concede, that the smaller the poll, the more important the individual vote becomes.  But in an election the size of the UK, can you really say to me that my vote - my individual vote - will change the outcome of any of the results, however local?  I'm not certain of this, but I doubt there has ever been a UK election in our lifetime where results have come down to a single vote either way.

[nemafakei]

Elections do get decided on the toss of a coin. I can't give you an example off the top of my head, but especially at local level, it does happen.

[Dragoon Knight]

I'll accept that, too.  It's certainly more feasible that in local elections, the single vote holds more sway.  One could even use the argument that, because of this, one party could get one more seat, which might be enough to allow them a greater say in the grand scheme of things.  Other than this being a little "butterfly effect"-ish, I concede it is theoretically possible.

But I still maintain that the act of me - and me alone - voting will, in 99.9% of cases, make no difference whatsoever.  Local elections may be won on the toss of a coin, as you put it, but I find it difficult to believe that there's been a situation in recent UK history where one vote has caused the difference between victory and defeat.  My point, however, would still stand even if there were - it would still be a freak occurrance.

If there's proof to the contrary, I'll certainly be willing to adjust my views a little, but I feel that it wouldn't address other concerns (e.g. the two-party majority in the UK, voting for the lesser evil, etc.)

[nemafakei]

Mm. I wouldn't argue that voting in parliamentary elections is particularly empowering.

But people neglect to vote not because they don't care in the issues at stake, but because they don't believe that their vote changes anything, both because of the nature of the major parties and also because of the mechanics of the system you've mentioned - 1 in several million once in four years doesn't make it seem worth it. Compulsory voting doesn't solve the issue, it covers it up.